Mozilla is ~83% funded by Google. That’s right- the maker of the dominant Chrome browser is mostly behind its own noteworthy “competitor”. When Google holds that much influence over Mozilla, I call it a false duopoly because consumers are duped into thinking the two are strongly competing with each other. In Mozilla’s effort to please Google and to a lesser extent the end users, it often gets caught pulling anti-user shenanigans. Users accept it because they see Firefox as the lesser of evils.

Even if it were a true duopoly, it would be insufficient anyway. For a tool that is so central to the UX of billions of people, there should be many more competitors.

public option

Every notable government has an online presence where they distribute information to the public. Yet they leave it to the public to come up with their own browser which may or may not be compatible with the public web service. In principle, if a government is going to distribute content to the public, they also have a duty to equip the public to be able to consume the content. Telling people to come up with their own private sector tools to reach the public sector is a bit off. It would be like telling citizens they can receive information about legislation that passes if they buy a private subscription to the Washington Post. The government should produce their own open source browser which adheres to open public standards and which all the gov websites are tested with.

I propose Italy

Italy is perhaps the only country in the world to have a “public money → public code” law, whereby any software development effort that is financed by the gov must be open source. So IMO Italy should develop a browser to be used to access websites of the Italian gov. Italy can save us from the false duopoly from Google.

  • @drwankingstein@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    401 year ago

    The reason why firefox and chrome work so well, is that they literally have been in development for over a decade. In Firefox’s case, it’s actually over two decades now.

    Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, why not support some currently existing alternative browsers that look promising? You have servo, you have webkit, and you even have a ladybird now. That’s three potential browsers.

    All three are under somewhat active development. Servo, in my opinion, looking the most promising, that shares a lot of dependencies with Firefox still, which means maintenance cost is not super high. It’s easy to hack on, and of course it’s rust. who doesnt love rust

    • @davehtaylor@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      The reason why firefox and chrome work so well, is that they literally have been in development for over a decade. In Firefox’s case, it’s actually over two decades now.

      Firefox’s legacy goes all the way back to Mosaic from the early 90s.

      And yeah, browser engines are hard. I mean, I get wanting Mozilla to be more financially independent, but without the money they get from Google for the search deal, they basically wouldn’t exist. It’s a really shit situation we’ve reached.

    • @debanqued@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      Sounds like a great idea, so long as Servo has not sold out to Google in any way. If Servo is really an independent browser govs would do right by the public to make that browser officially supported by all web services by the gov and do the necessary to ensure the Servo project is funded.

    • @debanqued@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The reason why firefox and chrome work so well, is that they literally have been in development for over a decade.

      How can you say they work well?

      Basic functionality is still crippled. For example, when images are disabled in Chrome, animated GIFs are still downloaded and played. Chrome does not even have the option to disable animations. When both images & animations are disabled in Firefox, animated GIFs are also still downloaded (wasting the credit of those on fixed bandwidth plans and thus defeating the purpose for those who would use the feature)… but they are simply not played automatically. Great.

      These are not just bugs… these are the sort of blunt stark defects that do not reflect the quality of mature projects. I mean shit, still today cannot disable animations in Chrome despite bug report 14 years ago. WTF. That is not “working well” when it can’t do something that basic.

      • @drwankingstein@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        I never said they worked perfect. The fact that they work at all is a goddamn miracle. Have you ever read some of the specs for all the things they have to support? It’s absolutely absurd.

        Them working good is relative to literally anything else. I could go on for list for days about issues on almost anything. Linux, Windows, OSX, Gnome, KDE. It doesn’t matter whether something has problems or not. What matters if they’re the best that you can get.

        Literally, no other browser is remotely close to Firefox and Chrome in terms of how well they actually work. Not a single one. Full stop. End of story. Forks excluded for obvious reasons.